State Dept spokeswoman protecting “my building leadership” joins their ranks

posted at 9:21 am on May 24, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The State Department spokeswoman who earlier this month found herself in the middle of the controversy surrounding key revisions to the Benghazi talking points appears to be in line for a promotion.

The White House announced Thursday that President Barack Obama intends to nominate Victoria Nuland as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, a position that requires Senate confirmation.

Nuland, who has served as the State Department spokesperson from 2011 until earlier this spring, came under fire from Obama administration critics last week after leaked e-mails revealed she raised concerns with the CIA-prepared talking points on the deadly terror attack last September 11.

Specifically, Nuland asked that references to al Qaeda and previous CIA warnings about threats posed to U.S. diplomats in Libya be scrubbed from the document that was used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on news talk shows to explain the administration’s understanding of events in Libya.

Even before Nuland makes it to a confirmation hearing, she’s going to have to prepare to answer questions on Capitol Hill. Nuland is one of 13 people that Issa plans to call in a House Oversight hearing on Benghazi as a follow-up to the hearing with three State Department whistleblowers, and Nuland will definitely be one of the star witnesses. Issa and the committee will want to know who prompted Nuland to press the CIA to remove all references to organized terrorism from the talking points given to Susan Rice after complaining that the draft didn’t meet the needs of State Department leadership:

Major revisions to the CIA memo were requested by Victoria Nuland, then-spokeswoman for the State Department, who said changes were needed to “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” The e-mails do not state what leaders she referred to.

That will certainly be one of the questions, yes. After hearing from Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom earlier this month, we can be sure there will be others as well.

This decision prompts to big questions: Why Nuland, and why now? The answer to the first question might be that the White House figured that Nuland’s career path spanning the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations would make her nomination “bipartisan.” Good luck with that argument after releasing that e-mail string. Telling the CIA to ixnay on the errorism-tay to protect her bosses isn’t exactly going to be a confidence-builder in her ability to act independently when it comes to reporting honestly and forthrightly to Congress after confirmation.

The “why now” question is even more puzzling. Until now, the Senate under Harry Reid’s control hasn’t seemed too keen on taking a closer look at Benghazi. Now that Nuland will have to testify at a confirmation hearing, all bets are off — and Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee will have a long opportunity to play T-ball with Nuland, putting her on the record in a manner that Issa will be able to use in his own investigation. If her testimony before the two panels differs in any way, Republicans will highlight it, and in a Senate floor vote, Republicans will use the platform to demand even more action from Reid and the Democrats to match Issa’s efforts in the House.

Does the White House really think that raising Nuland’s profile to a Senate confirmation level immediately after releasing those e-mails is a brilliant move? Are they thinking at all?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I know, I’m reaching here, but I can’t think of a logical explanation.

Doughboy on May 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Logic was reading the newspaper and having a scotch in the Oval Office in January 2008 when suddenly the doors busted open and a grinning Dog Eater strode in with Jarrett on one arm and Mooch on the other.

Logic took one long look, quietly folded the paper, downed the glass of scotch, put on its hat, and left the building for good. Logic knew better.

Why not now? She has demonstrated that she will readily compromise the truth to protect her higher ups and that kind of loyalty is just what the Obama administration values. Offering a big promotion with a raise in pay is a predictable ploy to keep her loyal and keep her quiet. The Obama administration is saying, “Play by our rules, babe, and we’ll make it worth your while.” They don’t care how transparent a move it is because they know the press will cover for them.

Those who were planning to leave anyway — like Hillary!, Holder, and Miller — will be sort of, kind of blamed for any of the “mistakes that were made”. But they will be taken care of. Their future careers and income will not take a hit, except maybe Hillary’s plans to be the next President.

Those who were planning to stick around — like Rice and Nuland — will be protected and shielded from any blame. And, apparently, promoted

Nuland can’t continue as A Spokesperson for State and she has to have her loyalty rewarded and so I think the whole Senate confirmation hearing thing went right past the thinking of the fixer in this case. Secondly, they seem to think they can sidestep landmines due to I don’t know…past experience.

Does the White House really think that raising Nuland’s profile to a Senate confirmation level immediately after releasing those e-mails is a brilliant move? Are they thinking at all?

The answer to your question is contained within the question.

The Dems control the Senate and they always manage to find enough GOP squishes to get 60 to go along with whatever appointments Dear Leader makes — “While I don’t like this appointment the President is entitled to appointment who he wants”.

Only in very rare cases does it not work this way. The WH is betting Nuland is too low level for 41 GOP Senators to have the backbone to seriously oppose her.

Reminds me of the movie Clear and Present Danger when Harrison Ford confronts the president and threatens to go public with what he knows (which would topple the presidency)…

HF: I will not let you dishonor their memories by pretending you had nothing to do with it…As Acting Deputy Director of Intelligence, it is my duty to report this matter to the Senate Oversight Committee.

Prez: You’re not going to do that.

HF: – I’m not?

Prez: You’ve got yourself a chip in the big game now. You’re going to save that for a time when your own ass is on the line you want a raise. And then you’re going to pull it out and I’m going to cash it in for you. Right?

The White House announced Thursday that President Barack Obama intends to nominate Victoria Nuland as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, a position that requires Senate confirmation.

Obummer needs to give Komrade Vlad more flexibility, and Tricky Vicky will tell him what he wants to hear.

Does the White House really think that raising Nuland’s profile to a Senate confirmation level immediately after releasing those e-mails is a brilliant move?

Yes, they think this is a brilliant move. More thumbing their noses at the rule of law and common sense and decency. Simply look at who has already been confirmed by the Senate and who is currently being fast-tracked.

Only in very rare cases does it not work this way. The WH is betting Nuland is too low level for 41 GOP Senators to have the backbone to seriously oppose her.

farsighted on May 24, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Pretty long odds on that bet, I’d imagine. Which GOP senator is going to go along with her nomination? Paul and Rubio are both on the Foreign Relations committee and there are several Dems up in 2014 on that committee. She might not make it past them, it’s almost like he’s daring the Senate not to confirm her.

Pretty long odds on that bet, I’d imagine. Which GOP senator is going to go along with her nomination? Paul and Rubio are both on the Foreign Relations committee and there are several Dems up in 2014 on that committee. She might not make it past them, it’s almost like he’s daring the Senate not to confirm her.

Nothing Obama is doing right now makes any sense.

PetecminMd on May 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM

McCain is who I had in mind when I wrote some might say “While I don’t like this appointment the President is entitled to appoint who he wants”. IIRC he has actually said that in the past.

Also, when was the last time an “assistant” SoS nominee was blocked? Usually Senate confirmation battles are at the top level.

Nonetheless, I agree that Comrade O is daring the Senate not to confirm her. He is a confrontational Chicago politician who wants to destroy his political opponents. This only makes sense if he really believes he can prevail.

It appears that the Obama administration is tone deaf and/or so arrogant that they believe either a game of chicken or a pi$$ing contest with Congress is in order. Victoria Nuland is their “in your face” to conservatives, who better be willing to put on their big boy pants and go after this.

Even before Nuland makes it to a confirmation hearing, she’s going to have to prepare to answer questions on Capitol Hill. Nuland is one of 13 people that Issa plans to call in a House Oversight hearing on Benghazi as a follow-up to the hearing with three State Department whistleblowers, and Nuland will definitely be one of the star witnesses. Issa and the committee will want to know who prompted Nuland to press the CIA to remove all references to organized terrorism from the talking points given to Susan Rice

I would so love to see Nuland take the 5th in front of Issa before she comes up for the confirmation hearing. That would be the icing on the cake of the incompetence of the Obama administration, tattooed with the arrogance of Obama by not withdrawing the nomination before Nuland appears before the confirmation hearing. The Trifecta!

Two immediate points:
1.It is unlikely she will be confirmed / damaged goods.
2. Why draw even more attention to her role in developing the talking points unless there is something they want us to see?

She was demonstrably concerned about how to craft the talking points in a way that would be less politically damaging. We just don’t know the extent of her role. My guess is the confirmation process is designed to make it abundantly clear that she and the CIA patsy were centrally responsible for crafting the fabrication.

She was the central liaison from CIA / State, working closely with both to assemble the facts and develop the talking points. She obviously let her bosses down by being being too aggressive in trying to protect the administration during a period of fast moving events and an avalanche of data flow. In such situations you have to rely on and trust those beneath you to provide you with clear-eyed assessments and information and unfortunately it did not happen in this instance.

It would be a shame if some Senate staffer received damning evidence of her complicity in crafting the narrative while simultaneously exculpating both Sec State and President. She was the lone wolf…the Benghazi Talking Points Mastermind…plotting with someone within the CIA to do damage control..

Disagree with Ed here. Think this is the Obama administration rewarding her for “playing ball” and not revealing information that would hurt them. Obama’s team playing chess and they’re a few steps ahead of their opponent…ensure the “right” testimony with a nice promotion.

Sure, it’s also an indication of arrogance, but circling the wagons and keeping the right people saying the right things is their priority….protect Obama and Hillary 2016 at all costs. It’s also a signal to the others…if stick with us, we’ll reward you.

The ideal distraction is something controversial on the surface, but that the American people will support. Drones overseas makes a good distraction, and probably explains the sudden press conference yesterday. Anything to do with taking a tough line against terrorism would work well, too. There’s a reason Clinton decided to bomb terrorists overseas when he was engulfed in scandals.

I don’t think this makes a good distraction. Too much possibility of it blowing up. Payoff/ensuring loyalty sounds like a more likely reason.

Or it could be as simple as the fact that Obama doesn’t like it when he doesn’t get his way, and wants to put those daring to question him “in their place.”

Maybe she should ask if “this won’t just feed Congressional questioning” of State’s decisions. She will be so busy answering Issa’s questions that it’ll be months before she talks to friendlier faces in the Senate.

Still, isn’t this just like Obama. First he flipped the middle finger to McCain on national TV and to Hilary on stage, and now to the country. What a SCOAMF.

Back to Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation that accounts for all the known facts is the most probable. Or the Holmes corollary: when you eliminate the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The simplest explanation? This administration thinks it is bullet proof. It is headed up, after all, by a man who has never had to be accountable for anything in his life. Sheltered and cosseted as a child, drug-soaked and lazy during high school, his leftist connections got him into Claremont, Columbia and Harvard. Naturally he thinks the world is his toy store and that he is untouchable.